A thematic analysis comparing critical thinking in engineering and humani- ties undergraduates

This paper examines the meaning and enactment of critical thinking for engineering and humanities undergraduate students. We address the following research question: What are the similarities and differences between humanities and engineering students in their perceptions and enactment of critical thinking? Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four to five undergraduate Materials Science & Engineering and English students. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. English and Materials Science & Engineering students differed in the specific way critical thinking was viewed. A major theme that arose for engineering students was that critical thinking was often similar or equivalent to problem solving. However, English students saw critical thinking as a way of forming opinions, forming and defending an argument, and making connections. Common themes for both groups included aspects such as broadening ideas, needing deeper understanding, and needing reflection and metacognition. Both groups utilized the concepts common throughout their major classes as the physical representation of critical thinking. The embodiment of course concepts as critical thinking may be supported by the idea of engineering identity and self-efficacy. Students may choose engineering, and stick to it, because they relate to the concepts and to how engineers think. However, faculty may influence how students in either discipline comprehend the meaning of critical thinking. Thus, critical thinking style may be considered a part of engineering identity or may be influenced by faculty. Introduction Critical thinking is considered an important attribute in engineers, and there is a desire to graduate engineers with the ability to think critically. 1,2 However, humanities departments believe that they are a key contributor to fostering creative and critical thinking. 3–5 In Academically Adrift, Arum and Roska reveal that neither humanities or engineering programs are fostering critical thinking as they desire, and overall student gains in critical thinking during their undergraduate years are minimal. 6 This leads to the question of what is critical thinking and how can it be fostered within the higher education curriculum. First, it is important to briefly detail how scholars view and define critical thinking. The definition of critical thinking differs throughout literature. 7–19 One of the commonly used expert definitions was created by a group of scholars, educators, and leading figures in critical thinking using the Delphi method. The consensus from this process defined critical thinking as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based.” 9,10 Most definitions of critical thinking are not empirically based, and they are rarely specific to engineering. More recently scholars have developed guides on critical thinking within specific areas, for example Paul and Elder’s Guide to Engineering Reason. 20 These guides also are founded on scholarly and philosophical definitions that were not based on empirical research. The empirically based critical thinking principles that do exist are founded upon expert and faculty beliefs, rather than student beliefs. 9,21–24 P ge 26124.2 In order to foster critical thinking in the undergraduate curriculum for humanities and engineering students, it is important to study what critical thinking means to these students and how they perceive their enactment of critical thinking. How can we teach critical thinking without understanding how students see critical thinking in the classroom? It is also valuable to understand the possible differences between critical thinking in these two disciplines. This could allow a foundational understanding of teaching and learning differences and similarities for the two disciplines and open possibilities to further existing pedagogies. Thus, in this paper we seek to provide an initial exploration of the similarities and differences of what critical thinking is for humanities and engineering students. We address the following research question: What are the similarities and differences between humanities and engineering students in their perceptions and enactment of critical thinking? For the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on one of the major categories discovered between the two groups of students: how students use and perform critical thinking. Methodology This study is the pilot phase of a larger project aiming to understand critical thinking for students and faculty in humanities and in engineering. As a pilot, four to five students each from Materials Science & Engineering and English were selected. Selection was based on requesting senior students from both departments to respond to an interest email and/or in-class visit. Semistructured interviews were conducted with five senior year undergraduate Materials Science & Engineering students and four senior year undergraduate English students. The interviews focused on the perception of students on the meaning of critical thinking and their use of critical thinking. In order to provide a starting point for the discussion, students were asked to bring an assignment that they felt required them to use critical thinking. Interviews followed an interview guide which contained a few broad questions asked within each interview such as “Can you describe the assignment in which you thought critically?”; “What does critical thinking mean to you?”; and “How do you see teachers implementing critical thinking in their classrooms?”. The interviewer then asked further, unstructured questions to gain a deeper understanding of concepts introduced by participants’ answers to the structured questions. Interviews were analyzed using interpretivist thematic analysis. Statements in the interview transcriptions were coded with descriptive labels through emergent coding, and these codes were then categorized into themes. Constant comparison, first within each interview and then within each cohort, was used to continually sort the data until a robust set of themes that explained the data was developed for each cohort. Then each cohort’s themes were compared in parallel, through the use of tables with sub-themes, to address similarities and differences. Coding and sorting was conducted by the first author. Trustworthiness, as defined by Borrego et al., was assured through conversations among peers, including the two authors and two other researchers not involved in the project. 25 In these conversations, themes, codes, and data were discussed and compared and then suggestions were made for revising the coding scheme and how the themes were organized.